Supreme Court Demotes Deputy Collector Who Demolished Slum-Dwellers' Huts Defying HC Order, Imposes Rs.1 Lakh Fine

As a punishment, the Supreme Court today directed demotion of a Deputy Collector in Andhra Pradesh who, in his capacity as Tahsildar, disobeyed directions of the High Court and forcibly removed slum-dwellers' huts in Guntur district, thereby displacing them.

A bench of Justices BR Gavai and AG Masih ordered that the State of Andhra Pradesh demote the petitioner-Deputy Collector to the post of Tahsildar. It was further directed that the petitioner shall deposit a fine of Rs.1 lakh within 4 weeks.

The Court was dealing with a plea filed by the petitioner/Deputy Collector against a High Court order which found him guilty of contempt of Court and sentenced him to 2 months' simple imprisonment.

Recognizing that "majesty of the law lies not in punishing, but in forgiving", the order was dictated thus:

"though petitioner is not entitled to any lenient approach, we find that on account of an adamant and callous attitude of petitioner, his children and family should not be made to suffer. If he undergoes sentence of 2 months, he would be dismissed from his services thereby depriving his family of livelihood. Therefore, we are inclined to confirm conviction of petitioner but take a lenient view on sentence. A message needs to be given...Petitioner is directed to reduction of one level in the hierarchy of his service. State of AP is directed to demote the petitioner to the post of Tahsildar. Further promotional avenues shall be considered from...he shall further pay fine of Rs.1 lakh."

The Court specifically emphasized that when a Constitutional Court, or any other Court, issues any direction, every authority, howsoever high it may be, must comply. A disobedience of Court's order attacks foundation of rule of law on which democracy is based, it said.

With regard to the pleas raised on the petitioner's behalf for leniency, the Court observed,

"He [Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka] submits that petitioner and his entire family would come on the roads. He further submits that petitioner's 2 children who are taking education in 11th and 12th class would not be in a position to continue their education and their careers would be lost. We are of the view that petitioner ought to have thought about all this when he demolished structures of slum dwellers and threw them on the road alongwith their belongings. If petitioner expects humanitarian approach, he ought not to have acted in inhumane manner."

On an earlier occasion, the Court had asked the petitioner if he was willing to suffer demotion in order to avoid going to jail. However, he refused to accept demotion and drew the Court's ire for expecting to go scot-free despite a contemptuous violation of the High Court's order. The matter was adjourned till today at Senior Advocate Devashish Bharuka's request for time to convince the petitioner.

Background

Four persons, claiming to be in possession of certain land in Guntur District, filed representations before the Revenue authorities, for grant of house site pattas for the lands, which were said to be in their occupation. Thereafter, they approached the erstwhile High Court of Andhra Pradesh, contending that the revenue authorities were seeking to evict them from the plots in their occupation without considering their representations.

By order dated 13.09.2013, the High Court (Single Bench) disposed of the writ petition, directing the Tahsildar to consider the petitioners' application for grant of house site subject to their eligibility and to communicate the decision taken within a period of two months. It was further directed that none of the respondents, including the Tahsildar shall disturb the possession of the petitioners, if they are in possession of the lands.

Another set of people approached the High Court contending that they were in possession of lands in the Guntur district since 2 years and were sought to be removed without considering their representations for grant of house sites. In their case, by order dated 11.12.2013, the High Court (Single Bench) disposed of the petition, observing that the Tahsildar could not take law into his own hands by indulging in forcible removal of the structures. The people represented by the petitioner-union were restrained from raising any structures till their representations for grant of house site pattas were considered and the Tahsildar warned against repeating his acts in future.

Thereafter, the petitioners in both the cases filed contempt petitions, contending that despite the High Court's orders, the Tahsildar forcibly removed their huts on 06.12.2013 and 08.01.2014.

After noting that as many as 88 police personnel were brought to the site on 08.01.2014 at the request of the Tahsildar, the High Court (Single Bench) held that the Tahsildar acted in deliberate, utter disobedience of the Court orders and sentenced him to undergo simple imprisonment for 2 months as well as pay fine of Rs.2000/-.

Aggrieved, the Tahsildar filed contempt appeals. His contention was that he only sought to remove encroachments from the sites, which were erected by third parties overnight. However, the same were dismissed by the Division Bench of the High Court, noting that the stance was bereft of details and not very credible. In this backdrop, the Tahsildar moved the Supreme Court.

On May 5, Justice Gavai enquired about the persons whose slums were demolished. In response, Sr Adv Bharuka submitted that pursuant to a fact-finding enquiry, the contempt petitioners were not found to be living at the subject premises and one of them was in fact rehabilitated under a scheme.

Subsequently, the Court expressed that it would demote the petitioner to the post at which he was initially appointed, that is, Deputy Tahsildar, "so that his bread and butter is not affected". "Ask him to give an undertaking that he is willing to work as Deputy Tahsildar", Justice Gavai said, while underlining that it was a very serious matter, inasmuch as the demolition action was carried out despite the High Court's warning to the petitioner.

"[He carried] a fleet of 80 policemen along with him to demolish the houses of poor people", Justice Gavai noted. When Bharuka, without defending the action, sought to explain that at the relevant time there was tension between States of Andhra Pradesh and Telangana, and government land was being encroached, the judge ordered dismissal of the petition. Apologizing, Bharuka urged that he would not justify the action and sought time to take instructions from the petitioner.

As such, the matter was listed on May 6, when Bharuka conveyed the petitioner's non-willingness to suffer demotion. When the Court was displeased by the petitioner's adamancy and indicated that if he does not relent, it would not only dismiss the petition but also ensure that the petitioner is not re-instated, the matter again got adjourned at Bharuka's request for time to convince the petitioner.

Case Title: TATA MOHAN RAO Versus S. VENKATESWARLU AND ORS., SLP(C) No. 10056-10057/2025 

Citation : 2025 LiveLaw (SC) 571

Click here to read the judgment